Ex Parte Alderson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 28, 2018

14101777 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/101,777 12/10/2013
115799 7590 12/31/2018
Cirrus Logic c/o Jackson Walker LLP
c/o Jackson Walker, L.L.P.
100 Congress A venue
Suite 1100
Austin, TX 78701
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jeffrey D. Alderson
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
141841.00074 9984
EXAMINER
LEE,PING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2654
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/31/2018 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEFFREY D. ALDERSON and JON D. HENDRIX
Appeal 2017-011406 1
Application 14/101, 7772
Technology Center 2600
Before CARL L. SILVERMAN, SCOTT B. HOW ARD, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1---6, 8-20, 22-34, and 36-42. Claims
7, 21, and 35 were objected to. Final Act. 8. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
1 Our Decision relies upon Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed Mar.
9, 2017), Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Sept. 8, 2017), and Specification
("Spec.," filed Dec. 10, 2013), as well as the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.,"
mailed July 11, 2017), Advisory Action ("Adv. Act.," mailed Jan. 3, 2017),
and the Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Oct. 17, 2016).
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Cirrus Logic, Inc.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-011406
Application 14/101, 777
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention relates "to adaptive noise cancellation
in connection with an acoustic transducer, and more particularly, to
providing for adaptive playback equalization in an audio device." Spec. 1.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter of the appeal and is reproduced
below.
1. A personal audio device comprising:
a personal audio device housing;
a transducer coupled to the housing for reproducing an
output audio signal including an equalized source audio signal
for playback to a listener and an anti-noise signal for countering
the effects of ambient audio sounds in an acoustic output of the
transducer;
an error microphone coupled to the housing in proximity
to the transducer for providing an error microphone signal
indicative of the acoustic output of the transducer and the
ambient audio sounds at the transducer;
one or more processing circuits that implement:
a noise cancellation system that generates the anti-
noise signal to reduce the presence of the ambient audio
sounds heard by the listener based at least on the error
microphone signal; and
an adaptive playback equalization system that
generates the equalized source audio signal from a source
audio signal by adapting, based at least on the error
microphone signal, a response of the adaptive playback
equalization system to minimize a difference between the
source audio signal and the error microphone signal.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 15, 16, 18, 29, 30, and 32
under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(l) as being anticipated by Fellers et al. (US
2013/0083939 Al; published Apr. 4, 2013) (hereinafter "Fellers").
2
Appeal 2017-011406
Application 14/101, 777
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 5, 9-14, 19, 23-28, 33, and 37-
42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fellers.
(3) The Examiner rejected claims 3, 17, and 31 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Fellers and Eastty (US
2011/0096933 Al; published Apr. 28, 2011).
(4) The Examiner rejected claims 6, 20, and 34 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Fellers and Eatwell et
al. (US 5,481,615; issued Jan. 2, 1996) (hereinafter "Eatwell").
(5) The Examiner rejected claims 8, 22, and 36 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Fellers and
Abdollahzadeh Milani et al. (US 2012/0207317 Al; published Aug. 16,
2012) (hereinafter "Abdollahzadeh Milani").
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellants'
contentions for the reasons discussed below.
Appellants argue that Fellers fails to teach or suggest "an adaptive
playback equalization system ... to minimize a difference between the
source audio signal and the error microphone signal," as recited in
independent claim 1, and as similarly recited in independent claims 15 and
29. App. Br. 6-7. More specifically, Appellants argue that the Examiner
incorrectly relies on Fellers' dynamic noise compensation ("DNC") 306 and
subtractive circuits 307 for teaching the disputed limitation. App. Br. 7.
Appellants argue that Fellers instead teaches that these components
"generate a difference between a sound source and an error microphone
3
Appeal 2017-011406
Application 14/101, 777
signal to generate an estimate of ambient noise." Id. (citing Fellers ,r,r 46-
47, Figs. 3A, 3B) (emphasis added).
Appellants also argue that the Examiner's findings are inconsistent by
mapping Fellers' DNC 306 to the claimed "adaptive playback equalization
system," but mapping Fellers' plant model filter 305.1 of the active noise
cancellation block 304 (what the Examiner maps to the claimed noise
cancellation system) to what "minimiz[ es] a difference between the source
audio signal and the error microphone signal." Id. at 7 (citing Final Act. 9).
Appellants argue that such a mapping is contrary to the claims, which
require that the adaptive playback equalization system (not the noise
cancellation system) minimize a difference between the source audio signal
and the error microphone signal. Id. 7-8. Appellants also argue that
plant model filter 305.1 performs noise reduction functionality, and not
equalization. App. Br. 9.
In addition, Appellants argue that the Examiner "admits that Fellers
fails to explicitly recite the claim limitations." App. Br. 10 (citing Feb. 1,
2017 Panel Decision from Pre-Appeal Brief Review) (hereinafter "Pre-
Appeal Decision"). Appellants also argue that the Examiner fails to show
that Fellers' teachings are arranged as in claim 1 to support a finding of
anticipation. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 2-3 ( citing NetMoneyIN, Inc. v.
Verisign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369) (other citations omitted) (arguing the
Examiner rearranges Feller's teachings).
The Examiner finds that Fellers discloses the disputed limitation. See
Ans. 8-13; Adv. Act. 2. More specifically, the Examiner finds that Fellers'
DNC 306 corresponds to the claimed adaptive playback equalization system
- consistent with this mapping the Examiner sometimes refers to DNC 306
4
Appeal 2017-011406
Application 14/101, 777
as "adaptive playback equalization system 306." See e.g., Ans. 8-13 (citing
Fellers Fig. 3A, ,r,r 39-43, 46-47, 49); Adv. Act. 2 (citing Fellers ,r 49). The
Examiner finds that DNC 306 "includes a response that is adapted based on
the error microphone signal" to generate the equalized source signal. Ans.
10-11. More specifically, the Examiner finds that DNC 306 includes "plant
model processor (317), [ which is] related to the response of the electro-
acoustic channel 303, [and] affects the adaptation of the response of the
adaptive equalization system (306) which generates the equalized source
audio signal." Ans. 12 (citing Fellers ,r,r 46, 49). In other words, the
Examiner finds that plant model processor 317 provides adaptive
equalization to the source signal to take into account the plant (i.e., the
electroacoustic response 303 imparted by the channel elements (e.g.,
microphone 311, amplifiers, and converters)) on the desired audio. Id. The
Examiner finds that Feller discloses having an accurate plant model for the
plant model processor 317 impacts the response of the adaptive equalization
system (306). Ans. 12-13. To that end, the Examiner finds that Feller's
plant model processor 317 "is a part of [a] feedback loop [(using
microphone 311)] that controls the coefficient update[ s] of the entire system
including 306 and 317 [so that t]he plant model is adapted to mimic the
actual plant." Pre-Appeal Decision 2 (citing Fellers ,r,r 47, 49). The
Examiner finds that "the response of adaptive equalization system (306) is
being adapted to minimize a difference between the source audio signal and
the error microphone signal." Ans. 10 (citing Fellers Fig. 3A, ,r,r 39-40, 47,
49). Put differently, the Examiner finds that "[t]he entire system (302),
including the adaptive playback equalization system (306), operates to
5
Appeal 2017-011406
Application 14/101, 777
cancel the environmental noise and enhance the desired signal based on the
feedback from the error microphone (311)." Ans. 9; see also id. at 12-13.
We agree with the Examiner's findings and adopt them as our own.
For example, we agree that Fellers discloses that the plant processor 317 in
DNC 306 can "apply equalization by applying the spectral inverse of the
plant model Pm" to the source signal. See Fellers ,r 49. Fellers also discloses
"adapt[ing] the parameters of the plant model processor 317 ," with the goal
of minimizing error between the plant model Pm and the actual plant. Id. at
,r,r 47, 49. Furthermore, Fellers' Figure 3A illustrates the feedback of
microphone 311 being used ( after subtracting the conditioned source signal
by subtractor 307) to update coefficients 309 to reduce noise, which are used
by the plant model processor 317 for equalizing the source signal. Id. at Fig.
3A, ,r,r 46, 49. This feedback process minimizes a difference between the
source audio signal and the error microphone signal. Id.
In addition, we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the
Examiner purportedly admits that Fellers does not explicitly recite the claim
limitations. The Examiner finds"Fellers fails to explicitly state the same
words as claimed." Pre-Appeal Decision 2. A reference need not use the
same words to anticipate. See In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir.
2009) (a reference does not have to satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test to
disclose a claimed element); In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
( finding that anticipation "is not an 'ipsissimis verb is' test") ( citations
omitted).
We also are unpersuaded by Appellants' argument that Fellers fails to
disclose claim 1 as the claim limitations are arranged. Rather, Fellers
discloses the claim limitations in a single embodiment sufficient for a
6
Appeal 2017-011406
Application 14/101, 777
finding of anticipation. See Fellers Fig. 3A, ,r,r 20, 39-40, 46-47, 49; see
also Blue Calypso, LLCv. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1342--44 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (affirming a finding of anticipation, and distinguishing
NetMoneyIN, where the reference "explicitly contemplate[d]" that disclosed
functionalities could be combined in a single embodiment, despite not
having "an express discussion of the actual combination"); WM Wrigley Jr.
Co. v. Cadbury Adams USA LLC, 683 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
( finding that a prior art reference anticipated the claim at issue as the
reference envisioned using the claimed components in a single product).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner errs.
CONCLUSION
Based on our reasoning above, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 1, 15, and 29, as well as dependent claims 2, 4, 16, 18,
30, and 32, as Appellants do not provide separate arguments for their
patentability. We also sustain the Examiner's rejections of dependent claims
(i) 5, 9--14, 19, 23-28, 33 and 37--42; (ii) 3, 17, and 31; (iii) 6, 20, and 34;
and (iv) 8, 22, and 38, as Appellants do not provide separate arguments for
their patentability.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1---6, 8-20, 22-34,
and 36-42.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7